Suchergebnisse

Training in vertebrate pest management is in a parlous state worldwide. The level of retained corporate knowledge is continually declining as many senior pest managers leave the workforce and take the skills gained through years of experience with them, leaving a vacuum of appropriate skills in vertebrate pest management. There is a serious lack of training in vertebrate pest management at undergraduate or postgraduate level, and even less that is based on current best practice. In 2008, the Diploma in Conservation and Land Management (Vertebrate Pests) was developed in consultation with state government pest agencies to provide field officers with the skills needed to develop and implement strategic pest management plans. The course is based on the principles of the Australian Pest Animal Strategy and uses case studies from successfully operating programs to explain strategic management of pests. The course is offered through flexible on-line delivery supported by workshops, allowing students to study remotely without having to regularly attend a classroom. In 2010, the Graduate Certificate in Wildlife Management (Invasive Animals) was developed through the University of Canberra. It provides mid and upper level land managers with the skills to identify pest animal problems and develop and implement effective pest management strategies based on best practice. This course is offered through flexible on-line delivery and encourages students to incorporate pest animal management problems faced in their workplace into their studies. For land managers wishing to extend their qualifications in wildlife or pest management past the graduate certificate stage, the University of Canberra is developing graduate diploma and Masters level courses. These higher level qualifications will be designed following input from industry and should be able to be tailored to the individual needs of students.

Maintaining biodiversity and the associated ecosystem services is an objective of the European Union, implemented through agri-environmental programmes. Biodiversity decline is occurring at a worldwide scale and has twofold implications. From a conservation point of view, the number of extinct and endangered species increases, and this impoverishment of natural ecosystems reduces their resilience. From an agronomical point of view, reduction of biodiversity affects processes that hamper crop productivity, such as pollination or pest management, being the consequence of this biodiversity decline a reduction in agroecosystem sustainability. But both, ecosystem resilience and agro ecosystem sustainability are not isolated. In the case of pest control, in many cases it is assumed that it depends on biodiversity. However, a positive relationship between biodiversity of natural enemies and pest suppression is not always the case. In fact, in some cases this relationship does not occur (Fig.1), and the success of biological control depends not on biodiversity, but on the presence of one or only few species of natural enemies. As an example, in the case of olive trees, a single species such as Anthocoris nemoralis or relatively simple predator assemblagesare associated with better biological control than complex assemblages (Paredes et al., 2015). However, it seems that the general rule in different agroecosystems is that biodiversity rather than abundance of natural enemies is linked to pest control, although this has been proven mainly in annual crops and in non-mediterranean environmental conditions (Dainese et al., 2019).

With the enactment of the Biosecurity Act 1993, New Zealand obtained enabling legislation which makes it possible to develop and implement regional pest management strategies (RPMSs) which are integrated in terms of multi species approach, funding, and outcome objectives. Up until this time local authorities, government departments, and landowners had mixed signals in terms of resource versus pest values, dated legislation, no long-term strategic approach to pest control, and certainly no guarantees for funding. The Waikato Regional Council (Environment Waikato) experience in developing and implementing a regional pest management strategy under the Biosecurity Act is studied and reported on for this paper.

Biological controls that utilize natural predation, parasitism or other natural mechanisms, is an environmentally friendly alternative to chemical pesticides. Chemical pesticide methods are becoming less readily available due to increasing resistance problems and the prohibition of some substances. This book addresses the challenges of insufficient information and imperfectly understood regulatory processes in using biopesticides. It takes an interdisciplinary approach providing internationally comparative analyses on the registration of biopesticides and debates future biopesticide practices

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a promising alternative to conventional pesticide‐based pest control because IPM practices are less likely to pollute water supplies. Rational application of IPM principles is at least as profitable for farmers as is conventional pest control. However, better protection of water quality is not automatic. Publicly funded IPM programs should explicitly incorporate water and other environmental quality objectives to help ensure that farmers achieve these goals.

The impact of mammal pest animals, including the rabbit, fox, wild dog, feral pig, and feral goat, is one of the most significant threats to biodiversity, community values, and the economy in Victoria, Australia. The management of these pests is a complex issue involving all land types and land tenures. Both the Victorian Government and the community have expectations relating to the management of these pests; sometimes these expectations differ and finding solutions is difficult. To overcome this, the Victorian Government, through the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), has provided constructive debate on animal welfare issues and developed the Victorian Pest Management Framework (VPMF) to provide a consistent, strategic, and partnership-based approach to pest management, including mammal pests, on both private and public lands and waters. A key principle of the VPMF is that pest management is the responsibility of each land and water manager. Government only becomes involved where the action results in public benefit, incorporates shared investment principles, meets "duty of care" responsibilities, involves all stakeholders, and is consistent with State or Regional Catchment Strategies or Regional Action Plans. Government involvement also includes an accepted responsibility by public land managers to address damage caused to the community by pests that originate on public land and disperse onto adjacent private land. This responsibility is met through the Government's "Good Neighbour Program." The clear definition of expectations of community and Government detailed in the document has provided an agreed basis for all land and water managers to work together to develop and implement long-term, effective, safe and integrated management processes that protect and improve Victoria's biodiversity and natural values and protect its productivity base.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.